9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of packing need not be included in the assessable value with effect from 7-2-1983 onwards to the tune of Rs. 100 and Rs. 150, respectively. On enquiry it was found that the cost of packing claimed by the party was nothing but expenses said to have been incurred by them on account of maintenance of cylinders/ tonners, service charges, etc. which were recovered from the customers. Two show cause notices were issued - the first on 2-10-1983 and the second on 23-1-1984. The first show cause notice was in respect of price list effective from 4-12-1982, 7-2-1983, and 30-6-1983. It was alleged that the respondents have been claiming said amount on account of maintenance and service charges. The second show cause notice relates to the price list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e replacement of tonners valves, plugs, etc. and as per Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, any amount of expenditure incurred towards the cost of durable and returnable packing should be excluded. He allowed the appeals. 3. The Department has filed the present appeals on the ground that there was no provision to allow any further deduction for any expenditure on the cost of packing as claimed by the assessee because the amounts represented the expenses for maintenance of the cylinders. It was also alleged that compared to the life-span of the packings the respondents would be recovering far in excess of the cost of such packing. 4. Shri B.R. Tripathi, SDR, urged that the respondents cannot claim that the packings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the Hon ble Madras High Court has held that the Court cannot take notice of any fact which did not appear on the face of the order. The same principle is found in Mahender Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851) 6. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by both the parties. It is not disputed that the respondents supplied Chlorine in durable and returnable cylinders/tonners. The price list filed by them show that they have declared the nature of the packing as returnable and durable packing. They have also claimed Rs. 100 or Rs. 150 (as the case may be) as deductions from the price under Section 4(4)(d). As the packing is admittedly durable and returnable under Section 4(4)(d)(i) the inclusion of cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Asstt. Collector has erred in treating the packing charges as maintenance and service charges as also the rental charges. The decision reported in Bombay Tyre International has no application to the present case. The Appellate Collector has observed that the expenses were incurred towards replacement of parts, plugs, etc. This observation is not supported by any evidence. Even otherwise the claim for packing charges under Section 4(4)(d)(i) (as set out in the classification list) could be excluded in the absence of any evidence to the countrary. The apprehension of the Department that the respondents would be collecting amounts far in excess of the value of the containers is also not borne out by evidence. Shri C.S. Lodha submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
